I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and the staff from his Department. We will move on to amendment No. 13 in the names of Senators Stephenson, Harmon, Cosgrove and Noonan. Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, have already been discussed with amendment No. 6.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 20, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“ “legal counselling” means the provision to an applicant of information, guidance and assistance relating to the asylum procedure, having regard to the particular circumstances of the applicant, and that is provided—

(a) on an individual and in-person basis,

(b) by a practicing solicitor or barrister,

(c) in a language that is understood by the applicant, and includes—

(i) assistance in the lodging of an application for international protection,

(ii) support in the preparation for any interview conducted at first instance, and

(iii) the provision of information on the means available to challenge a decision refusing such an application;”.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 14:

In the definition of “legal counselling”, after paragraph (c)(vi) to insert “legal counselling shall be tailored to the individual needs and circumstances of the applicant;”.

Amendments Nos. 16, 380 and 381 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 20, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“ “national reception capacity” means the number of applicants who can be accommodated within State provided reception facilities in a manner consistent with the standards of the Reception Conditions Directive;”.

Amendments Nos. 16, 380 and 381 have been proposed for a similar reason. Yesterday, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, asked us what measures would we like to see included in the Bill. When we discussed an earlier Stage of the Bill, by the nature of it we were debating it in more general terms rather than setting out the concrete nitty-gritty changes we want. I hope that these amendments, and the greater package of amendments of which they are part, will give the Minister some idea of what we are looking for. The central issue we must address in this Bill is that of capacity. The amendments in this grouping all look at and attempt to solve one of the most uncomfortable and glaring inconveniences of this Bill, which is that none of its ambitions can be realised unless we are honest about the capacity of the State, the information available to the Oireachtas and the practical limits of implementation.

The Minister mentioned yesterday that the position of many Members of this House is that we should not have opted into the migration pact in the first place. To be open, that is my own position. We do not want to be an echo chamber. Senator McDowell said that our Government should be going to Europe to seek, through the Council, a path towards looking to reverse our own opt-in; to build alliances with other countries that are unhappy with the pact, such as the Netherlands, Poland and Austria; to reverse the general course of this pact; or even to reverse even the course the EU has taken. I might add that we should have debates scheduled in this House on this subject.

In the meantime, I am a realist. We have opted in and that is a fact. We should make the most of the space between our national sovereignty and the existing EU regulations to exercise our own sovereign control over this issue, which is something I hope these amendments will do. To be frank, this pact is doomed to fail over the long term. In the meantime, we need to guard our sovereignty with respect to the capacity of our system. How we define, recognise and build a system around capacity is within our jurisdiction. This will be crucial in guarding the integrity of our sovereignty in concrete, material terms, and not just in terms of principle as we discussed yesterday. The concrete nature of sovereignty, both our own and that of any member state, is crucial to understand. The Minister said yesterday that our sovereignty is technically intact because we opted in as a sovereign nation. Let us be real on the nature of how opt-ins happen and how the EU more generally works. While I will not impugn motives on anyone, sometimes Ministers do not have the full picture of how many powers they may be giving away and what the actual cost-benefit is. God only knows how busy they are putting out fires. This is how Brussels has been operating for years. We need to acknowledge that the EU institutions, like any institution, have an innate interest in accruing powers for themselves. We need to be clear-eyed that open Eurofederalists have a heavy influence within the institution. They are fully entitled to their views but the end product is that competence creep is a reality.

For the past 30 years national governments have been constantly losing control via the back door. When a Minister agrees to an opt-in, it barely makes the news. Years later, in hindsight, we find that we have no control over our monetary policy and no control over our fisheries. Now we will have no control over our asylum policies. We have to acknowledge this reality and ask how sovereign these opt-ins really are. If this opt-in had been decided by referendum on foot of a fully informed debate, we all know that Irish voters would have roundly rejected it. Against this backdrop, it is incumbent on everyone in these Houses, Opposition and Government alike, to push to the limits the powers our national Government can find within this Bill. This returns me to the question of national capacity. If we legislate for a system that is disconnected from the capacity to deliver it, we are not creating order; we are creating the conditions for collapse. No Senator in this House, regardless of party or ideology, should want that because it will benefit nobody. It will not benefit international protection applicants, the public, Berlaymont or Leinster House.

Amendment No. 16, in defining "national reception capacity", does something very simple: it puts into law a definition of the term and defines what it actually means.

Right now, the term "capacity" appears repeatedly in the Bill and is used in several senses such as the capacity of the applicant to understand the application process. In one case, we had adequate capacity, which means the adequate capacity of the State calculated by the European Commission in accordance with the asylum procedures regulation. This last case is dangerous and I will consider bringing Report Stage amendments - or I would have - to correct it, because we should be determining capacity, not the Commission. This is extraordinary when we consider that reception capacity determines the State's ability to comply with EU deadlines. It determines how many people can be processed, housed, interviewed or safely accommodated, as well as what constitutes overcapacity or pressure under both domestic law and EU mechanisms. How can the Government trigger a crisis derogation? How can the Minister change capacity constraints? How can any of these sections function when the foundational term is undefined? My amendment defines national reception capacity as being the number of applicants who can be accommodated within State-provided reception facilities in a manner consistent with the standards of the reception conditions directive. This is legally sound. It aligns Irish law with EU standards, and it prevents future Ministers from moving the goalposts by redefining capacity in whatever way is politically convenient. This is not opposition; it is legislative discipline.

Amendment No. 380 proposes transparent reporting every three months. If amendment No. 16 defines the concept, amendment No. 380 ensures that we monitor it properly. This amendment requires Ministers to lay before each House every three months a statement containing the current national reception capacity, as well as the number of applicants currently accommodated within that capacity. Why is this essential? It is essential because immigration and international protection policy is not static; it changes by the week. Pressures rise and fall. New obligations emerge. EU solidarity cycles adjust. Border dynamics fluctuate. Without regular reporting, the Oireachtas is legislating blindly, local authorities are planning blindly and front-line services are responding blindly. Most importantly, we would not know in real time when the system is near breaking point. The Government frequently tells us the State is doing its best and that there is pressure and that capacity is limited but none of those phrases mean anything unless we measure what capacity is, how close we are to it and how it is trending over time. As a quick side note, I believe the Minister has been doing a good job. Of course, he could have gone far beyond on this particular legislation but that is another matter. However, we need a serious change to this Bill and our stance in the EU, especially making use of the derogations, precisely in order to protect the good work done so far.

To return to the point, quarterly reporting is not burdensome. It is not politically motivated; it is a basic governance. Some may argue that this creates additional administrative work. My response is simple; if the Department cannot produce a quarterly statement of its own capacity, it is not able to administer a system this complex in the first place.

Amendment No. 381 proposes requiring Oireachtas scrutiny before any expansion of capacity. The final amendment in this grouping, amendment No. 381, deals with something critically important, namely, the democratic accountability around any decision to expand national capacity centres. Under this amendment, before any expansion occurs, the Minister must lay before the House a statement setting out the reason for the expansion, the impact on the operation of the Act, and the implications of the State's obligation under EU Acts. This is not about blocking expansions, it is about ensuring that expansions are explained, justified, and scrutinised, because expanding capacity is not a neutral act, it is a major policy decision with serious consequences. It affects housing, local services, policy, community relations and the Department's budget. It affects every existing applicant in the system and Ireland's position under EU solidarity rules. If the Minister wants to expand capacity, let him explain why, and let the Oireachtas consider it. This is democracy, transparency, and accountability. The broader issue is we cannot run an international protection system on guesswork.

When one looks at amendments Nos. 16, 380, and 381 together, they form a coherent logic in respect of defining and reporting on capacity and debating any change to capacity. Without these three steps, this Bill operates in a vacuum, as if capacity is infinite, irrelevant or too awkward to measure. We all know that Ireland's reception system is at record numbers, under severe strain and reliant on temporary accommodation. There are court cases from international protection applicants because we cannot house them. We are struggling to meet the basic standards and facing escalating pressures from EU solidarity obligations. Let me make brief reference again to the numbers we mentioned yesterday. Those numbers are horrific. We are talking about 1.2 million-----

I ask the Senator to keep to her amendments.

-----people seeking asylum at this moment in time in Europe, and almost 32,000 here in this country. We are the country with the third highest number of applicants in the entire EU. Only Cyprus, which is a front-line State, and Luxembourg, which has a tiny population, are ahead of us. We have more than six applications for every thousand people. That is higher than Greece and Italy, both of which are states on the front line of the ongoing crisis. I hope the Minister of State will consider my amendments.

I thank the Minister of State for being here. I support Senator Keogan’s amendments and I thank her for bringing them forward. Amendments Nos. 16, 380, and 381 are reasonable asks. It is easy to push this debate into the political sparring field of left or right but if we do not have the facilities to provide adequate accommodation, it is nothing other than common sense to limit the numbers of asylum seekers. One area where this becomes particularly important is child protection. Under the EU reception conditions directive, minors seeking protection should be accommodated separately from unrelated adults. In theory, that safeguard is clear. In practice, however, the State has struggled with the fundamental issue of age verification. There have been 14 legal cases taken against the State in the past four years where age assessment was a central issue. The situation has been complicated by confusion over which agency is actually responsible for confirming whether someone presenting as an unaccompanied minor is under 18. Tusla has clarified that it does not carry out statutory age assessments. Its role is limited to determining whether someone referred to it qualifies for services under the Child Care Act. Meanwhile, the International Protection Office is in fact the body responsible for determining an applicant's age for the purposes of the international protection system.

If the Minister of State looks at the reception conditions directive, we are not even close to meeting those guidelines. The Government is presiding over children being housed in private, for-profit accommodation without any adequate safeguards in place for them. I ask the Government to support this amendment and indicate its commitment to protecting children who come into the State unaccompanied and who deserve the highest standards of care and safety.

I thank the Senators. I propose to respond to amendments Nos. 16, 380 and 381 together. I am not accepting the amendments. I believe amendment No. 16 would restrict the State's ability to deal with the capacity issues in a flexible manner. Having a fixed definition for a component of the asylum process that is subject to fluctuation depending on the numbers of individuals seeking international protection would limit the State's ability to respond to sudden increases in arrival and would place the State in a legally precarious position were we to exceed a set national capacity figure.

As for amendment No. 380, it would lead to an unnecessary level of rigidity and create operational difficulties if implemented. Moreover, the 85% figure in the proposed section 224(2) contained in the amendment appears to be an arbitrary one with no legal basis in national, international or EU law. I am hesitant to implement such a measure as it may be misinterpreted and construed by some as an attempt to impose a maximum number of persons who may apply for international protection. In addition, the publication of figures under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed section 224(1) would not provide proof the State is in compliance with its obligations under the reception conditions directive. A number of considerations such as the condition of accommodation centres, the provision of adequate healthcare for persons accommodated in those centres and the treatment of applicants assessed as having special reception needs while in IPAS accommodation also need to be taken into account when determining whether the State is meeting its obligations under the reception conditions directive. The amendment does not add any substantive value to the Bill and therefore I do not intend to accept it.

On amendment No. 381, rather than creating effective oversight of the reception system this amendment would cause delays in the expansion of IPAS accommodation in instances where the State is experiencing a high level of demand for accommodation and would hamper the ability of operational staff to respond to this demand. This would cause particular difficulties in ensuring the State meets its obligations under Article 19.1 of the reception conditions directive to provide material reception conditions to applicants from the moment they make their application for international protection.

It is only this month, I think, that we had an individual take this Government to court because it could not provide housing for them. It is not too long ago that we had people camping outside buildings on Mount Street because we could not provide capacity. We had no capacity. One of the State's arguments in the court case was it was unable to provide accommodation to the individuals. Capacity is really important. Our capacity to deal with individuals who are coming into the country is really important. What dignity is the Government giving the people who are sleeping in tents? There is no dignity in that. I am disappointed the Government has decided we can taken an infinite number of asylum seekers into the country when we have not got the resources for them. We just do not have the capacity. The Government needs to define the capacity we can take. Putting them into hotels and direct provision centres or processing centres down the line is not the way to deal with the capacity issue in the country. That is not giving dignity to those who are seeking asylum.

I welcome the Minister of State. I will not reiterate what others have said but I wish to convey to him my disappointment. I am not going to elongate it as he has heard it before. It is something of a disappointment that this Stage of the proceedings is going to be guillotined. Parties and many other groups advocated for the retention of the Seanad but this makes a farce of this House. We are willing, we are ready and we are well-paid public servants who want to engage in a parliamentary process. We are, of course, the Upper House and we do not need anyone to explain that to us but we, as the Minister of State's former leader, Leo Varadkar, mentioned, are principally a revising Chamber. That is our function in the Constitution and we are effectively being denied the ability to exercise this. We could sit here until 10 p.m. There is no reason well-paid Ministers and Ministers of State, well-paid Senators and, indeed, officials cannot use the parliamentary process to engage in teasing out legislation. That is our function and our job. When we try to justify and explain the importance of the Upper House, it is very difficult when effectively we have a party whip system. The Minister of State, clearly, is involved with that, it is the party structure and I accept that as I am a realist. However, it is disappointing. I always say to people that my audience is outside. It is in that little camera up on the wall. It is the people who tonight in their homes will listen to the Oireachtas reports. Let us therefore keep the communication simple. The coalition Government has decided collectively to guillotine very important legislation and this prevents the democratically elected parliamentarians in this House from fully exercising their function and from calling on the Minister to account for the amendments. A very substantial number of these amendments are the Minister's. We will not be able to discuss them. The Minister will not have time to set them out, which is disappointing too. I accept the Minister of State is part of a team and he is here and I want to be respectful, but I just wanted to make that point because it is important we articulate that concern.

Amendment No. 16 from my colleague, Senator Keogan, provides for a definition of "national reception capacity" as the number of applicants who can be accommodated within State-provided reception facilities in a manner consistent with the standards of - this is the issue I wish to speak to the Minister of State about - the reception conditions directive. I understand that directive was updated in 2024 and has the reference number 1346 for that year. It sets out minimum standards for the treatment of asylum seekers across the member states, including Ireland, regarding access to housing, food, healthcare and education for minors. That is an important point because there is misinformation and disinformation in the debate and, to be fair to those on all sides, it is important we be clear about what we mean by terms like the EU reception conditions directive. I understand this directive mandates faster access to the labour market within six months and harmonises reception standards to ensure dignified, consistent care while applicants are being processed. I would expect nothing less from the European member states, including Ireland.

I will mention some of the key directives because I want to ask the Minister of State to confirm whether this is his understanding of what I am led to believe is tied up with the EU reception conditions directive. The key aspects of this directive include standardised living conditions. Member states must ensure an adequate standard of living, including housing, food, clothing and daily expense allowances. There are of course conditions attached to that allowance and I think the Minister has covered that before. A second aspect is that there be faster access to the labour market. Applicants will have the right to work within six months, which was previously nine months, of their application being registered. A third aspect is protection of minors. This is an especially important issue and one I want to focus on. I acknowledge the enormous work of the Ombudsman for Children, the human rights bodies and the many advocacy groups that engaged in this process. Again, we will not have an opportunity to give voice to some of the amendments they asked us to pursue, or even to any of the topics or issues, because if this Bill is guillotined as the Government proposes, we will not reach all the sections. Consequently, we will not even be able to comment at this stage in the process. Access to education for minors must be provided as soon as possible but not later than two months from the application being lodged. I note that is the date of the application being lodged rather than it being approved. Then I come to special needs. Specific attention and supports are provided for applicants with special reception needs. Those are varied and wide so I will not go through the whole list.

That is my understanding of the EU reception conditions directive, but what does the Minister of State say? Is that his understanding? Can he confirm that? Is he happy with that? In some ways it is positive and it is fair. Of course we must have consistency across the European Union and we must tackle this in many ways but when the Minister announced the legislation, he spoke about how he wanted consistency, fairness and a robust scheme. I do not altogether like the word "robust" in this context but we have to be compassionate. We have to be caring. It has to be human rights-based. Everything we do has to be human rights-based. Where children - unaccompanied minors - find themselves in our State, no matter what way they came in, we must have a human and humanitarian response. We must commit to their safeguarding and I understand that is the gist of it, but the major concerns expressed to me via emails and letters are from people who are spelling out concerns about vulnerable people and minors.

We are a republic and we have a special place for children and the family in our Constitution. We have to be consistent. Regardless of how and when they came, where children and minors find themselves within our State, it is paramount that we protect them at every opportunity.

I ask the Minister of State to clarify his understanding of the EU reception conditions directive. It has reasonable objectives and ones that all of us would seek to do but clarity is needed. This is a very complex Bill. Sometimes the key is clarity about what we are attempting to do and our understanding of what is being proposed for us. I am interested in the Minister of State's comments on that.

I acknowledge the earlier points made by the Senator. The provisions of the reception conditions directive will be given effect by new sections that are proposed to be inserted into the Bill by amendments that we will discuss later.

On the system which we operate, many of the things that the Senator has outlined are exactly what I always want to see. I want to see a system that works, is fair and deals with people in a compassionate way. I want to see a system that works to the best, which is why I believe what we are doing in the Bill is trying to achieve all of that. I want to see a system that works for children but I also want to see a system that works for the State by ensuring we have a process in place that enables us to deal with international protection applicants coming in, to provide them with the ability to make their claim and to have in the system a place that enables us to do that in a very speedy, effective and correct way where everybody has the opportunity to have access to what they need and, therefore, an adjudication can be reached, and people have certainty. The current situation of people being in a system for many years does not serve anybody. That is why the reception conditions directive will be addressed through this but I very much believe in the system mentioned by the Senator.

Is Senator Keogan pressing her amendment?

Yes.

Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 23, 98 to 104, inclusive, 106 to 116, inclusive, and 118 to 129, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 100, 104, 107, 112 or 114.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are simple technical amendments related to amendment No. 106, which I will outline later.

Amendment No. 23 is a technical amendment related to amendment No. 98.

Amendment No. 98 provides for the designation of the competent authority in respect of representatives.

Amendment No. 29 clarifies the notification procedure when it comes to the attention of a relevant body that an applicant may be an unaccompanied minor.

Amendment No. 100 seeks to require the appointment of a representative within the specified period of three working days, and provides that in the interim, necessary measures should be taken to safeguard the welfare and best interests of the minor. The proposed amendment does not align with the directive or regulation requirements, which require that a provisional representative is appointed as soon as possible, and that a long-term representative is appointed within 15 days. The proposed amendment would reduce the rights of unaccompanied minors in the State and I do not propose to accept it.

Amendments Nos. 101 to 103, inclusive, are technical amendments related to the improved layout of the Chapter. The text proposed to be deleted is now provided for more coherently as part of the revised section 47, which is set out in amendment No. 116.

Amendment No. 104 seeks to ensure that a representative may be appointed to no more than 30 unaccompanied minors at one time. As my own amendment No. 116 provides explicitly for this matter, I do not see any need to accept amendment No. 104.

Amendment No. 106 reorganises section 44 to clarify the procedure for representative organisations to appoint provisional representatives and representatives.

Amendment No. 107 concerns regular training for representatives and the prohibition of representatives having a record of criminal offences concerning children. Training requirements for representatives are covered in section 43 and the revised section 47, and will be further developed by the regulations to be made under section 50. I believe that further provision is unnecessary. Individuals with a record of criminal offences concerning children will, of course, be precluded from acting as representatives and provisional representatives. The appropriate places for such provision are the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012. My officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel are finalising the text of these provisions and they will be brought forward on Report Stage. Therefore, I cannot accept amendment No. 107.

Amendments Nos. 108 to 111, inclusive, are technical amendments which relate to amendment No. 106 and its clarifications to section 44.

Amendment No. 112, like amendment No. 107, relates to training and vetting for representatives. It cannot be accepted for the same reasons as I have stated in relation to amendment No. 107.

Amendment No. 113 facilitates the work of representatives by providing them with access to the unaccompanied minors file.

Amendment No. 114 relates to the caseloads assigned to each representative. My own amendment, No. 116, provides for this matter and therefore it is not necessary to accept amendment No. 114.

Amendment No. 115 is related to amendment No. 113 and facilitates the work of representatives by ensuring they are provided with the decisions and determinations sent to unaccompanied minors.

Amendment No. 116 deletes the current section 47 and replaces it with a clarified text that more effectively describes the functions of provisional representatives and representatives. The text now emphasises the central function of the representative in safeguarding the best interests and well-being of unaccompanied minors, as well as setting out the caseload, independence and training requirements to be applied.

Amendments Nos. 118 to 128, inclusive, concern section 48 and the cessation of the representative's role. I propose that the text of section 48(1) should be revised to clarify the circumstances in which a representative's role ceases.

Amendment No. 124 introduces a new subsection, which provides for the cessation of the appointment of a representative organisation.

Amendments Nos. 125 to 128, inclusive, then provide for the interaction between the cessation of a representative person and a representative organisation.

Amendment No. 129 is a technical amendment related to the changes made as part of amendment No. 16.

I will deal with amendment No. 100 and amendments Nos. 104 to 114, inclusive.

Amendment No. 100 addresses an important issue about the international protection system and the timely appointment of a representative for unaccompanied minors. Unaccompanied minors are among the most vulnerable individuals in the system. They arrive into the State without the support of a parent or a guardian and may have experienced trauma, displacement and significant instability before reaching Ireland. In those circumstances, the role of the representative is not optional but essential. A representative ensures that the child's rights are protected, that they are supported through what is a complex and unfamiliar system and process, and that decisions made in relation to their case are informed by the child's best interests. This amendment recognises that timing actually matters. Delays in appointing a representative can leave a child in a position of uncertainty and vulnerability at the very earliest stages of their interaction with the system, precisely where support is needed the most. This amendment introduces a clear and responsible requirement. It provides that where a notification is made in respect of an unaccompanied minor, a representative must be appointed within three working days. It is not an excessive or burdensome requirement; it is just a basic safeguard. This amendment recognises that if we are serious about protecting children, early intervention has to be a priority and, in the interim period, the competent authority must take all the necessary measures to safeguard the welfare and best interests of the child. In other words, the child must not be left without protection at any stage. Importantly, the amendment makes clear that any failure to meet the three-day timeline does not prejudice the rights of the child. That is a crucial safeguard. A child should never suffer a disadvantage because of delays or failures within the system and this amendment is about setting that clear standard.

On amendment No. 104, I understand the Minister is bringing in his own amendment in relation to the number of minors per representative. That is fine.

Amendment No. 107 focuses on strengthening the safeguards around those appointed to act as representatives for unaccompanied minors within the international protection system. At the core, the amendment is about ensuring individuals entrusted with supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our system are properly trained, suitable for the role and held to appropriate standards. We have already discussed the importance of appointing representatives for unaccompanied minors and doing so in a timely manner. Appointing them is not enough, however - we must also ensure those individuals are equipped to carry out the role effectively and, most importantly, safely. The amendment introduces two very specific requirements. First, it provides that representative organisations must ensure that individuals appointed as representatives receive regular training for the performance of their duties. That training is essential. Representing an unaccompanied minor is not a straightforward administrative role. It requires an understanding of child protection, trauma-informed practices, cultural sensitivities and the complexity of the international protection process. Without proper training, there is a real risk that individuals may not be fully equipped to support a child or to identify potential safeguarding concerns. Regular training ensures the representative remains up to date, competent and capable of carrying out their responsibilities. Second, the amendment provides that no individual should be appointed as a provisional representative or as a representative where the person has a record of criminal offences concerning children. That is a fundamental safeguard. If we are placing children into a system where they must rely on appointed representatives to support and advocate for them, we must be certain those individuals are suitable for that role.

Amendment No. 112 relates to minimum standards for representatives. It seeks to ensure those appointed to represent these unaccompanied minors meet clear, robust and consistent minimum standards. We have spoken about the representation of children within the international protection system, but representation is only as effective as the person who is providing it. When a child arrives in the State alone, the individual appointed to represent them plays a critical role not just as a procedure but in safeguarding their welfare and advocating for their best interests. This amendment ensures those representatives are properly vetted, trained and qualified to carry out the role. It requires Garda vetting in line with existing legislation and it requires the representative to have the necessary qualifications and experience to effectively represent the interests of an unaccompanied minor. These are not excessive requirements; they are just basic safeguards. We would expect no less where individuals are working directly with vulnerable children. The amendment also makes clear that those standards apply regardless of any regulations made elsewhere. In other words, they are the baseline protection that cannot be diluted. If we are to ask children to place their trust in the State and in the individuals appointed to represent them, we must be able to stand over the quality and the integrity of these appointments. Equally, we must properly resource all of the other bodies that will potentially be representing minors, like Tusla, and have resourcing and accountability for the determining authority. I refer again to resourcing the Legal Aid Board properly and giving children the right to an interpreter and relevant representations to prevent any delays. This amendment ensures the screening and assessment procedures take into account the detection, protection and support needs of the child.

Our final amendment, No. 114, is around the appropriate caseloads of representatives. This is a very practical issue within the international system but one that has a direct and very real impact on the welfare of unaccompanied minors. It deals with the assignment of caseloads to representatives. We have already discussed the importance of ensuring unaccompanied minors are appointed a representative. As I have said, those representatives need to be trained properly and safeguards need to be put in place. Again, we must look at the principle that goes beyond just appointing a representative for them and consider how the system operates in practice. Even when all those elements are in place, the system will not function effectively if representatives are assigned workloads they simply cannot manage. The amendment provides that the Minister shall ensure the representatives are assigned caseloads that allow for the effective discharge of their functions. It also makes clear that a representative should not be assigned such a number of unaccompanied minors that it would undermine the welfare or the best interest of the child. The role of the representative is not a passive one - it involves engaging with the child, understanding their circumstances, supporting them through the process, advocating on their behalf and ensuring their rights are upheld. That requires time, attention and capacity. If a representative is responsible for too many children, that level of engagement simply cannot be maintained. When that happens, it is the child who suffers in the end. Their needs may not be fully identified, their voice may not be properly heard and safeguards may not be picked up on early enough. We have seen that in other cases in the public service. When caseloads are unmanageable, the quality of care and support inevitably declines. This amendment is about preventing that from happening. It ensures the system is not only structured correctly on paper, but is capable of functioning effectively in practice.

The Minister is very welcome to the House. I want to talk about amendment No. 116, which replaces a section that outlines a huge range of duties that representatives for minors have. It is obviously welcome that it covers a wide range of responsibilities such as helping them through the screening process, meeting with the minor personally, taking into account their views and helping them to provide biometric data, lodge an application and prepare for an interview.

It is concerning that the Bill allows for an individual to represent 30 minors at once. It seems entirely unrealistic that a single person could provide this level of attention to 30 minors at once while also being able to recognise and take care of their individual circumstances and needs. Some consideration has to be given to that number, bearing in mind that some of those minors are coming from war-torn countries and might have serious trauma issues.

We submitted an amendment to section 47, which was ruled out of order for reasons of cost to the Exchequer, that sought to add functions that a representative person would have in the event that they were in contact with a child who had been trafficked. It would be useful to understand the Minister's reasoning for not including such provisions as this seems like a really sensible place to create a connection between our international protection system and the national referral mechanism.

I will be brief because we have so much to go through. Again, I just want to echo the concerns about the caseload of 30. We would regard 30 in a classroom as a very high number for individuals to manage, and we are talking about 30 very vulnerable minors, potentially with very complex needs. It is hard to see how their best interests could be represented with such a caseload, in particular as there are other parts in the Bill, which we may get to discuss later - or perhaps not as it is being guillotined - that will deeply affect minors, including provisions relating to the restriction of movement and the detention of minors who have committed no crimes or offence. They are simply seeking to exercise their right to seek asylum and they deserve the support of the State. Those provisions are extremely concerning.

There are also issues in relation to family reunification and the limits on that in terms of who can be reunited in the case of a minor child. Because they are not explicitly named as issues within the functions here, perhaps the Minister would confirm that they would be supported to navigate all those aspects. We may not get to the family reunification piece because of the guillotining of the Bill, which is shameful, but that will be a particular issue for vulnerable children. The current family reunification system is very limited and deals with a spouse, children or parent. It excludes, for example, the sibling of a minor child.

I do appreciate the Minister's response yesterday. I recognise that some of the areas we have been concerned about being removed from section 44 have been brought into section 47. It is not exactly "skills and expertise", but it is "qualifications and expertise" and, to an extent, that covers the same area. I am concerned that the caseload is not going to be manageable given some very serious potential constraints on the rights of children in other aspects of the Bill.

I thank Senator Nicole Ryan for her amendments, and other Senators for their contributions. What we are debating at present is chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Bill, which concerns the appointment of representatives for unaccompanied minors. I am well aware that this is an area of significant interest and importance to Senators. It is also a very significant part of the legislation. As people will be aware, under the Bill there will be a requirement on me to designate a competent authority for the purpose of being the provisional representative or the representative persons. One of the issues that is contained within the Bill at present in section 44 is that there will be a requirement for persons to be appointed as representatives as soon as possible in respect of the unaccompanied minor. That was one of the issues that was raised by Deputies and it was specifically raised by Senator Ryan in her proposed amendment. In respect of that proposed amendment - amendment No. 100 - it is important to point out that the requirement under the directive is that somebody would be appointed as a provisional representative as soon as possible and that a long-term representative would be appointed within 15 days. Senator Ryan's amendment sought to have a period of three days specified in respect of that but I believe that what will happen is that the personal representative will be appointed very shortly after the minor arrives in the State, and most probably usually on the day the minor arrives. "As soon as possible" is intended to make sure that provisional representatives are appointed at the earliest possible time. That is the reason for not accepting amendment No. 100. I believe the provisions that are there in terms of "as soon as possible" will be more effective.

Senator Black also referred to what is a very important amending provision that is coming in during this debate, if voted for by the Seanad and enacted, which is contained in amendment No. 116. She correctly points out that it sets out in considerable detail the functions of provisional representative persons and representative persons. It extends to two pages. It is important that the functions of the representatives are set out very precisely. As we will see from subsection (2) of what will be the new section 47, the requirement will be to meet with the unaccompanied minor and take into account the minor's views, to assist the unaccompanied minor in the provision of information, and to provide the unaccompanied minor with information. It is all set out as to exactly what the requirements are.

The concerns of Senators Black and Higgins are that this will be far too much work if a person is entitled to represent 30 unaccompanied minors. The limit of 30, as it is provided for in the legislation, is an outer limit provided for in the directives and in the regulations. It is expected that, operationally, the number of minors in a representative's caseload will be lower than 30. Notwithstanding the specification of what is contained within amendment No. 116, the functions to a large extent will be functions that at present are carried out by Tusla, which is simply accompanying minors through the process, attending at the interview with the minor and other such functions. Some extra functions will arrive as a result of the amendment provided for in section 116.

While I am on my feet, I will respond to what Senator Higgins referred to. She spoke about the fact that the legislation allows for the detention of minors. Technically, that is correct but we need to be clear about the circumstances in which the detention of a minor is permitted under the legislation, in particular under section 24 at present. There is a cumulative list of requirements that should apply before the detention of a minor is permitted. I will mention only one of them. The last requirement which is set out in section 24(12)(c) is that it is assessed by the member or officer that the detention is in the unaccompanied minor's best interests and safeguards the unaccompanied minor. The only time there will be detention for a very short period is if it is believed to be in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor and it safeguards the unaccompanied minor. Technically, Senator Higgins is correct to say that the Bill provides for the detention of minors but we have to be clear and accurate in terms of the circumstances in which that is permitted. It is only permitted when it is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor.

It is assessed by the member or the officer involved. I think that is a fair assessment. The individual who is concerned - the representative of the State - is looking to ensure it is in the best interests of the minor. I cannot think of any other person who would be in a position to make that determination. I will listen to the Senator if she has another suggestion.

Could I just clarify if that will include the immigration officers we have heard about?

I refer to the potential privately contracted immigration officers-----

It is assessed-----

-----whose appointment we heard about yesterday.

The Senator did mention yesterday about privately contracted officers. It is not envisaged at present that we are going to-----

It is provided for, nonetheless.

Through the Chair, please.

It is possible that services can be contracted out. It is not envisaged that we are going to start privatising the work that is being done at present by immigration officers. They do a difficult job very sensitively. Obviously, somebody has to make an assessment in respect of an unaccompanied minor. It cannot be left the minor to determine whether it is in his or her best interests or not. It has to be somebody in a position of authority. As the Senator can see from this legislation, the State has put the interests of the unaccompanied minor first and foremost in this legislation. It is only fair that in circumstances where the State representative believes there is a threat to the minor or it would be in the best interests of the minor to be detained for a very short period of time, that should be permitted.

Amendments Nos. 19, 37 to 42, inclusive, 45, 46, 48 to 52, inclusive, and 53 to 57, inclusive are related. Amendments Nos. 49 to 57, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 48. Therefore, amendments Nos. 19, 37 to 42, inclusive, and 45 to 57, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 23, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“(2) A reference in this Act to a “measure of last resort” means, in relation to an adult or a child, a measure that is taken only after all non-custodial alternatives to detention have been duly considered, in accordance with Recital 33 and Article 10(2) of the Reception Conditions Directive.”.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 19, 38, 49, 50, 51 and 52 in the name of the Cross-Party Group. This amendment seeks to define “measure of last resort” to ensure that non-custodial alternatives are enshrined in the Bill and that all alternative options are examined before a person - an adult or a child - is detained. We should be clear first of all that, as various human rights groups have made clear, the detention of a child is never in the child's best interests and runs contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is incompatible with the child's best interests, yet the Bill currently allows for the detention of children. Ireland has never resorted to the detention of children for immigration reasons in the past. This has been a point of pride for successive Governments. However, if the Government is insistent, as it seems to be, on changing this and for the first time embedding the detention of children within our immigration system, this amendment is vital.

We need to ensure that we look at all alternatives available to the State in relation to how we treat people once they arrive in our country, the processes we put them through and the places in which we put them. The Minister claimed in the Dáil that this is effectively unnecessary because the Bill already limits the circumstances for detention, including children, as though that should end the discussion on this matter. However, the limit he spoke of is the requirement that the Garda must be satisfied that the child's detention is in the interests of the child, which, as we know, is not true. He also pointed out that detention would be time limited to 12 hours as if to say that 12 hours' detention is a trifling matter not deserving of our scrutiny. Simply put, we are not satisfied that this issue is dealt with adequately in the Bill. That is why we are putting forward this amendment. We need to make it crystal clear on the face of it that the Bill and all other options must be looked at before detention is resorted to.

In relation to amendment No. 38, the Bill significantly expands the powers of arrest and detention within our asylum and immigration system. Again, this is regrettable. The amendment makes it clear that on the face of the Bill, the act of seeking international protection itself can never be criminalised. It is a simple amendment. The expansion of detention inherent in the Bill is unwelcome and something to which we are opposed. We only need to look around the world today to see that people end up in dark places when migration itself is treated as a criminal matter or when detention centres become the primary means of dealing with this issue. It is not our job as legislators to legislate for the best intentions for the Government or the Minister of the day. I am sure the Minister will say this amendment is unnecessary because, of course, it is not his vision for our migration system. Simply put, we do not believe that the Bill, as drafted, includes the necessary safeguards to ensure that arrest and detention do not at some point in the future take centre stage in our migration systems. These have been issues that have been highlighted by others in opposition over the course of the past two days. That is the impetus of this amendment. It is to protect the fundamental right to seek asylum and ensure it can never become criminalised in this country.

Amendment No. 49, together with amendments Nos. 50 and 51, would require that when an applicant is accompanied by a child, less coercive measures than detention are used. The expansion of detention under this Bill, putting powers of arrest at the heart of our migration policy for the first time, is deeply regrettable. What is more, the Bill does not provide for the safeguards necessary for vulnerable people and groups within the system. Most egregiously, it has already been said that the Bill allows for the detention of children. In cases where a child is in custody of an applicant, it is imperative that the child is not under threat of detention simply by way of accompanying his or her parents or guardian to the detention centre. Where a child is under the guardianship of an adult, less coercive measures must be applied and that is what these amendments seek to do. Together with amendment No. 7, they seek to ensure that a child who has not committed any crime cannot be detained under this Bill.

I have spoken to amendment No. 50 already.

On amendment No. 52, the detention of children is never compatible with their best interests. Every human rights organisation and expert group we have heard from has been clear on this issue. The amendment would delete the provisions in the Bill that allow for the detention of minors by the Garda in order to ascertain their identity or nationality. The Bill, as it is currently drafted, includes a stipulation that in order to detain a child, the Garda must be satisfied that it is in the accompanied minor's best interests. It is really baffling that this provision has been made in this Bill's passage, while evidence heard throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and beyond is that this is impossible. We could charitably say that the Government's determination to include this is wishful thinking that if we just keep saying it is in the child's best interests, then it will be, or we could be less charitable by saying that this is wilful ignorance. Our job in these Houses is to legislate based on reality, not on wishful thinking. Again, the reality is that detaining a child is never in the child's best interests. It is simply wrong. Ireland has never resorted to the detention of children who have not committed a crime in our migration system. This needs to be a point of pride. It used to be the point of pride for previous Governments and it is deeply regrettable that this Government is choosing to blindly ignore all the expert testimony we have heard to date in order to play through on immigration at the expense of vulnerable children. This amendment would straightforwardly remove these provisions from the Bill, which we believe is essential.

I will be speaking to some of the amendments Senator Noonan spoke about and a few others. I will let the Minister know which ones they are when I reach them.

Amendment No. 38 provides that "A member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer shall not arrest an applicant under this section for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant, or on the basis of his or her nationality." The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has cited numerous mechanisms that deprive international protection applicants of their liberty despite the right to liberty being one of the most strongly protected rights under international law and, indeed, Irish law. We are concerned about the idea that we might risk criminalising the very act of asylum seeking and the very act of migration. The concern for us here is that this Bill has no safeguards to avoid that potentially taking place.

On amendment No. 19, which the Minister will be familiar with, the reception conditions directive states that any decision imposing detention should state the reasons "other less coercive alternative measures" could not be applied effectively and "any alternatives measures to detention should respect the fundamental human rights of applicants". This is why we have proposed an amendment around the idea of a "measure of last resort". It seeks to put the onus on the Government to comply with international law, to be creative and to think about alternative ways instead of always defaulting to the position of detention, which, certainly when it comes to children, is not in anybody's best interests.

On amendment No. 46, we have heard from human rights organisations that they are very much troubled by the fact that this Bill is providing a kind of power of arrest for large swathes of the non-Irish population, and not just international protection applicants.

It sounds eerily similar to scenes we have seen in other countries around immigration, with customs and practices changing and becoming much more draconian. I am concerned that this Bill prioritises, above all things, the power to detain vulnerable people who are seeking protection, particularly on the question of minors. It prioritises detention and the forced movement of people to screening centres, thereby overriding the rights of people with special reception needs in particular, such as people with disabilities, elderly people, pregnant people, families and perhaps people who have been victims of rape, torture or other forms of sexual violence and violence in general. Being forced into a detention centre could have hugely retraumatising impacts.

On amendment No. 47, which was ruled out of order, I am going to speak about it briefly. It was ruled out of order simply because of the cost. Everything could potentially be interpreted as having a cost, so it obviously makes our abilities to put forward good amendments quite limiting in many instances. This was about suitable accommodation, specifically for minors, and because we are concerned that the Bill's power to detain any applicant who may be the parent or guardian of a minor. There are no measures laid out to make accommodations for the safeguarding of the child in that case other than to contact child and family agencies. I am sure many people here are aware of the story of Peter, a 14-year-old who was placed in a horrendous Tusla-run special care arrangement situation. He was left alone to sleep on a soiled mattress. There was no food for him to eat and no one to make sure he went to school. There were inadequate hygiene facilities and three adult strangers in the accommodation with him. Repeated calls to Tusla never got any further than that and we cannot allow such treatment of children and that is why this amendment was put forward. I recognise that it has been ruled out of order but this idea of having appropriate accommodation for children who are in detention is so crucial. The idea that we would not have it is shocking.

On amendment No. 50, I will talk again about my concern about the normalisation of detention as the best way to manage challenges with asylum seekers. I find it astonishing that there is no other option and that we are just going straight with detention. We are looking at harsh punishments as a first resort instead of a last resort. It risks criminalising asylum seekers. These are people who have a legitimate right under international law to seek asylum when fleeing war, abuse or persecution. Obviously we have a massive issue with overcrowding in prisons, as the Minister will be well aware, in the Dóchas Centre prison in particular. Recently, there was a story about the high levels of overcrowding there. I visited it last September and I heard from prison officials that the challenges with the beds is the number of people being detained on their way to deportation and the significant impact that is then having on other prisoners and their ability in terms of rehabilitation and getting the right access to supports and resources so that they are not in the continuous cycle of recidivism. There are alternatives to coerced detention. We could have regular check-ins with gardaí, requiring an applicant to stay in a particular location. These would be just as effective, more humane and less costly and put less pressures on the systems.

I will also speak to amendment No. 53, which was also ruled out of order. I will not spend long on it, but again, this is about people with special reception needs, namely, people with disabilities, pregnant women, older people and children. Again, this was ruled out of order because of the cost it would incur. The idea that people with very specific needs would not be catered for is a human rights violation, potentially. We should not be downgrading any of the provisions that we would be offering these groups.

I will speak briefly on amendments Nos. 39 and 41. Amendment No. 39 is quite straightforward. It ensures that applicants are clearly informed of two fundamental rights within their international protection process. These are the right to an appeals mechanism and the right to access legal representation, which are not extras in the system but rather core elements of the fairness we provide. The international protection process is complex and for many applicants it is unfamiliar and difficult to navigate. If an individual is not clearly informed of their right to appeal a decision or their right to access legal advice, then there is a real risk that those rights may not be exercised at all. This amendment simply ensures clarity. It makes it explicit that applicants must be informed of these rights at an early stage in the process. That benefits not only the applicant but equally the system as a whole.

Amendment No. 41 looks at detention as a last resort. It seeks to bring clarity and balance to the use of detention powers within the international protection system. It provides that arrests without warrant or detention of an applicant should be a measure of last resort and only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has a documented history of violent criminal offending or is a present danger to public security or public order, which would enhance oversight when it may come to deportation. This is about setting a clear and proportionate threshold. Detention is one of the most serious actions the State can take and it should not be used lightly or as a default. At the same time, we have to recognise that there are circumstances where intervention is necessary to protect public safety and this amendment strikes to seek that balance. It ensures that detention powers remain available where there is a genuine and evidenced risk but also places important limits to their use. It requires that decisions are based on documented history, reasonable grounds or a present risk, not on the assumption or the status and not on broad or undefined concerns. This is about ensuring a system that is fair, proportionate and grounded in evidence and protects both the State and the public as a whole.

First I want to speak about a concern I have about Government amendment No. 37 which outlines the obligation of an immigration officer or a garda to inform an applicant being directed to a screening centre of their obligations under the Bill and the fact that their refusal to follow such a direction would constitute an implicit withdrawal from the asylum process. However, it does not contain any provision that such information would be provided to the applicant in a language that they can reasonably be expected to understand, as is included in other parts of the Bill. It would seem entirely unfair if applicants were withdrawn from being able to apply for international protection based on information they have received which they do not understand. I hope the Minister might consider this amendment.

Moving to our own amendments in this grouping, amendment No. 40 ensures that people cannot be arrested without a warrant under this section, and the discretionary powers granted to immigration officers and gardaí under this Bill are highly concerning. We do not believe that they should be detaining and arresting people without a warrant. My other colleagues have spoken about concerns of misidentification leading to detention, and this provision seeks to avoid those types of outcomes. Similarly, amendment No. 56 requires a court order for the detention of applicants, which is currently not required.

Amendment No. 57 allows a person recourse to judicial review in the event of their detention under this section. Amendment No. 42 is inserted to ensure that facial image data is not used for the purposes of identifying a person under this Part. Currently, it is unclear how facial image data will be used, but in this section a person may be detained for the purposes of identifying them. This provision aims to ensure that the use of facial image data does not motivate these decisions. Organisations such as Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have previously and consistently raised concerns about the risks associated with the use of biometric data and facial recognition in law enforcement, notably in relation to the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government. A study done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States showed that African American and Asian faces were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white faces and the highest false positive rate was among Native Americans. Similar research conducted by the University of Essex in the UK showed that the technology tested was accurate in just 19% of cases. Various studies on the use of facial recognition in policing in the USA, Canada and the UK have found that facial recognition systems misidentify black faces at a very high rate. Facial recognition is less accurate in identifying people with darker skin tones, especially women, due to inherent biases on the material used to train facial recognition software, with some software showing misidentification rates being 34% higher among darker skinned females than lighter skinned males. There are several high-profile cases of individuals being falsely identified by live facial recognition software used by the Metropolitan Police, for example.

We need to ensure that such automatic misidentification does not happen here.

Amendment No. 45 seeks to prevent people from being detained in a vehicle longer than the time it takes to transfer that person to a screening centre. Currently, the Bill allows for a person to be detained in a car for up to 12 hours, which is a completely disproportionate length of time for someone to be detained in a vehicle. It would be useful if the Minister would share his logic on this provision. Our amendment would ensure there would be some sense of proportionality to the duration of time someone might be detained in these circumstances.

Amendment No. 46 ensures that an applicant with special reception needs is not criminalised for behaving in a manner likely to endanger the applicant's safety or the safety of others when a garda or immigration officer is arresting and detaining someone to take them to a screening centre, or obstruct or hinder them while they are performing those functions. There need to be explicit exceptions laid out for people with special reception needs. These are highly vulnerable groups that include minors, persons with disabilities and persons with mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The circumstances of their behaviour need to be fully considered in the context of their special reception needs, especially if it might result in arrest and detention.

Amendment No. 48 deletes three subsections, which provide for the detention of unaccompanied children, and will replace them with a provision that explicitly prohibits the detention of children. Children should not be detained under this Bill. It is regrettable that there are several provisions that allow for their detention. Even if it is considered a measure of last resort, this goes against the recommendations of the Ombudsman for Children and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Both have stated that children should not be detained for any immigration-related reasons and detention is never in the best interest of the child. Our amendment provides that families will not be separated and they should be accommodated in appropriate accommodation. Less coercive alternative measures to detention are not defined in this section, so our amendment No. 54 seeks to do that by defining it as a regular reporting to an authority, the submission of a financial deposit or the requirement to stay in an assigned place.

Amendment No. 55 provides that applicants with special reception needs shall not be detained if it puts their physical and mental health at risk. If they are detained, they should be provided with ongoing support. However, as we have alluded to with our other amendments, we fundamentally believe minors should never be detained under this Bill.

Regrettably, I did not put down any amendments on the prohibition of children being detained, but I would like to know what the Minister thinks that should look like, when it comes to the detention centres for children. I might be the only person in here who has ever fostered children who have come through the airports as unaccompanied minors. I tell him that the hardest thing you will ever do as a foster parent is to bring a child into your home who has come off a plane. Most kids I had were under the age of 12 and it is harrowing to deal with those children who have been left to fend for themselves in a country and a strange place where they know nobody. No person should have to hear the howls and cries of those children. I do not know what the Minister is going to propose to make that an easier transition for those unaccompanied minors who come here and find themselves either trafficked into this country or without documentation. Maybe they are in a transition period as they find somebody they are related to and who could already be in direct provision in this country. Having a safe and loving environment for that child to come into is really important because that child will be traumatised for years to come. I would like to know what that looks like to the Minister. What do these detention centres look like? I can tell him, from a child's perspective, it is a hard place to be.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 49 to 52, inclusive. I first state that the detention of a child is not acceptable, as many human rights organisations have said. I have been contacted by so many people even today about this Bill who have serious concerns. People from counties across the country are sending in concerns, such as I am sure have been received by other Senators.

Amendment No. 19 would define "measure of last resort" to ensure that non-custodial alternatives are enshrined in the Bill and all alternatives are examined before a person, either adult or child, is detained. We should be clear, as human rights groups have said, that the detention of a child is never in the best interests of the child. I want to repeat that. It is incompatible with that best interest, yet the Bill allows for the detention of children. Ireland has never in the past resorted to the detention of children for immigration reasons. This has been a point of pride for successive Governments, so it is extremely regrettable that this Bill is going to propose the detention of children. However, if the Government is insistent, as it seems to be, on changing this and for the first time embedding the detention of children within our immigration system, this amendment is absolutely vital. I urge the Minister to accept it.

We need to ensure that we look at all alternatives available to the State with regard to how we treat people once they arrive in the country, the process we put them through, and the places in which we put them. The Minister claimed in the Dáil that this was effectively unnecessary because the Bill already limited the circumstances for detention, including that of children, as though that should end the discussion on this matter. However, the limit he spoke about was the requirement that the Garda must be satisfied that the child's detention is in the best interests of the child, which as we know is a fiction. He also pointed to the fact that the detention would be limited to 12 hours as if to say that 12 hours' detention was a trifling matter not deserving of our scrutiny. Simply put, we are not satisfied that this issue is dealt with adequately in the Bill and that is why we are putting forward this amendment. We need to make it crystal clear on the face of the Bill that all other options must first be looked at before detention is resorted to.

Amendment No. 38 ensures that an applicant cannot be arrested for the reason of their having claimed asylum alone or because of their nationality. The Bill significantly expands the powers of arrest and detention within our asylum and immigration system, and this is regrettable. This amendment makes clear on the face of the Bill that the act of seeking international protection itself can never be criminalised. It is a simple amendment. The expansion of detention inherent in the Bill is unwelcome and something we are completely opposed to. We only need to look around the world to see the dark places we end up in when migration itself is treated as a criminal matter or when detention centres become the primary means of dealing with this issue. It is not our job as legislators to legislate for the best intentions of the Government or the Minister of the day.

I am sure the Minister will say this amendment is unnecessary because of course this is not his version of our migration system. However, simply put, we do not believe the Bill as drafted includes the necessary safeguards to ensure that arrest and detention will not at some point in the future take centre stage in our migration system. We must guard against this. The impetus for this amendment is to protect the fundamental right to seek asylum and to ensure it can never be criminalised in this country.

Amendment No. 49 requires less coercive measures where a person is accompanied by a child. This amendment, with amendments Nos. 50 and 51, would require that when an applicant was accompanied by a child, less coercive measures than detention were used. The expansion of detention under this Bill, and putting powers of arrest at the heart of our migration system for the first time, is deeply regrettable. What is more, the Bill does not provide the safeguards necessary for vulnerable people and groups within the system. Most egregiously, as has already been said, the Bill allows for the detention of children. I have repeated this many times, as have many other Senators in the Chamber, but it is a point worth repeating, as this Bill would set a precedent in this regard that had not been set before.

In cases where a child is in the custody of an applicant, it is imperative that the child is not under threat of detention simply by way of accompanying their parent or guardian to the detention centre. Where a child is under the guardianship of an adult, less coercive measures must be applied. That is what these amendments seek to do. Together with amendment No. 7, they would seek to ensure that a child who has not committed any crime cannot be detained under this Bill.

Amendment No. 52 would remove the Bill's provision on allowing for the detention of a child. The specific amendment deals with the detention of children, which is not compatible with their best interests. Every human rights organisation and expert group we have heard from on this Bill has been clear on this point. This amendment would delete the provisions in the Bill that allow for the detention of minors by the Garda in order to ascertain their identity or nationality. The Bill as it is currently drafted includes the stipulation that to detain a child, the Garda must be satisfied that it is in the unaccompanied minor's best interests. It is baffling that this provision has made it this far through the Bill's passage when the evidence, as heard through pre-legislative scrutiny and beyond, is that this is impossible. We could charitably see the Government's determination to include this as wishful thinking that if we just keep saying that it is in the child's best interests, then it will be. We could less charitably see it as wilful ignorance from the Government. Our job in these Houses is to legislate based on reality not on wishful thinking. The reality is that detaining a child is never in their best interest. It is simply wrong. Ireland has never resorted to the detention of children who have not committed a crime in our migration system. This has been a point of pride for previous Governments and it is deeply regrettable that this Government is choosing to blindly ignore all the expert testimony that we have heard in order to play tough on immigration at the expense of vulnerable children. This amendment would straightforwardly remove these provisions from the Bill, which we believe is essential.

As my colleague, Senator Black, has spoken to our amendments in the section, I will not reiterate all the points. As the Minister has heard multiple times, the key questions and the key issues are that it is never in the best interests of the child to have detention. There is strong feeling that the safeguards are not adequate in relation to the protection of the rights. It is not clear who will be determining these. As the Minister said, the Bill provides for this to be contracted. That may not be the Minister's intention but contracting out is provided for. What are the mechanisms to be used to assess the best interests of the child? It may be the Garda Síochána or it may be contracted out; it is not clear. What training will they have in relation to engaging with children? We do not know. The huge appeal from the Minister we are hearing again and again is that it is not envisaged that this would go wrong, it is not envisaged that the worst interpretation would be made of the powers that are being made and it is not envisaged that the safeguards would be necessary. Frankly, we cannot give the benefit of the doubt. We cannot give the benefit of the doubt because we are looking at legislation that is being guillotined. If the Government is choosing to deny full scrutiny of the Oireachtas to large and vast amounts of substantial amendments - there are 70 pages of Government amendments - by guillotining the legislation, then the Minister does not get to also roll in with the narrative that this is general and middle of the road and we know how we are and we are generally decent people where we all give each other the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt is lost. We cannot have confidence because if the Minister is applying this approach to the legislation, which is a poor approach that cuts corners on proper process, then it will not be reflected in how the measures in the Bill are being implemented. This is why people are putting forward extraordinarily reasonable amendments in an attempt to build in the safeguards that the Bill should have. This is to ensure we do not have the separation of parents from children and to ensure we do not have children in terror detained for some of the reasons, by the way, that are very weak. One reason for detaining is to determine or verify the identity or nationality of the minor. Is this going to be a fishing expedition? That is what the Bill allows. Applicants who are not criminals, either adults or children, can be detained to determine or verify their identity or nationality so we can just take people in and tell them we want to spend a couple of days figuring out where we think they are from. That will be done in a context of detention rather than correctly, as it should be done, through the application process. That is not adequate grounds or a basis for detention for an adult and particularly not for a child.

I want to indicate now that there are also provisions in the Bill on which I may bring amendments on Report Stage such as one stating "A person shall not obstruct or hinder a member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer engaged in the performance of a function under this section." Let us look at that. We do not know who the immigration officers will be. We know that they have huge powers and we have been told not to look at ICE as it is not like that. No it is not because in the case of ICE, members of the public have stepped in in situations where they have seen abuse of power, where they have seen powers used wrongly or where they have seen detention of persons whose names the immigration officers do not even know but where the officers clearly are engaged in racial profiling. Will a member of the public in Ireland who steps in in a situation where they see what looks like, and may well be, a situation of racial or ethnic profiling now become vulnerable to arrest? Will that be the threat to ensure we make it difficult for people to stand in solidarity with others? The scenes we see are scenes that are possible. The scene we see today in a guillotining of legislation does not give confidence.

I thank Senators for the amendments they have moved. I thank them all for their contributions. I spoke yesterday about how in this legislation what I am seeking to do, and in fairness what Senators are seeking to do as well, is to try to balance on the one hand the rights of an asylum applicant with, on the other hand, the legitimate rights of the State to try to ensure it can exert control over the asylum process. We spoke earlier, in the context of unaccompanied minors, about how it is very important for the State, and it is in the legislation, to put it in place representatives or provisional representatives. That is an example of where the legislation is tilted in favour of the asylum applicant. What we are discussing here in the context of these amendments is the obligation that arises in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill. Part 2 of the Bill refers to Eurodac and screening. This is where the State is putting in what it says are the obligations a person who is applying for asylum must comply with if they want to apply for asylum in Ireland. I think everyone in this House must agree that if somebody claims asylum in Ireland, we are entitled to ask them to follow a number of procedural steps in order that we can assess and appraise their application. I do not think anyone could object to that. It happens in every country in the world.

The obligation we are discussing here is that when somebody arrives in and claims international protection or asylum, whether it be at a port or directly at the International Protection Office, under this legislation if enacted and from 12 June onwards, we will have a situation where people will be assessed on Eurodac and they will have their details taken on an EU-wide information system that will contain data in respect of individuals who have sought asylum. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do to try to identify individuals who come into Ireland claiming asylum. It is essential in terms of trying to assess the application for international protection to know in fact where does the person originate from. The whole purpose of international protection is persons saying that they are fleeing persecution, or they are fleeing war because they are of a nationality, or were resident in a place which is subject to war and persecution. The only obligation we are saying when somebody arrives in under this legislation is that "Would you go please to a screening centre and at the screening centre you will have your application process, you will have your identity verified and you will be screened through the Eurodac system". That is the only thing we are talking about here. When somebody arrives in they will be told they have to go to a screening centre. Under the legislation I will designate screening centres. Let us just use an example. Let us say we decide that a place up in Rathmines, for example, is to be a screening centre.

If somebody comes in and they claim international protection, we tell them they have to go to the screening centre in Rathmines as that is where they will be checked on the Eurodac system and where screening and seeking to verify their identity will take place. It is a perfectly legitimate request to ask a person to go to Rathmines for that to happen. In fact, we would probably pay for the taxi for them to go to Rathmines for that to happen.

People are talking about arrest and detention, but I will explain the only issue we are talking about here. If somebody who has come in says that they are not going to go to the screening centre in Rathmines, the State has to have the power to tell them that they have to go there, and if they do not go there and they do not allow themselves to be assessed on Eurodac and screened in that context, they are committing an offence. In that instance, there is permission to use arrest and detention. This is the only context in which a child or unaccompanied minor could find themselves being arrested and detained.

As I mentioned previously, there are certain limitations in respect of how a child can be arrested and detained. It can happen for the purpose of trying to identify them and trying to screen the child. I mentioned earlier that section 24 of the Bill provides for a series of tests that must be complied with in order for a very short-term detention, which cannot be for more than 12 hours, to take place. One of them is that it has to be assessed by the member or officer that it is in the best interests of the child and it safeguards the unaccompanied minor. It also has to be necessary for the purposes of determining or verifying the identity or nationality of the unaccompanied minor.

Senator Higgins criticised the inclusion within this provision of the identification of the person's nationality as though this is some form of national profiling. I will not say "racial profiling". It is, in part, national profiling because we want to establish where the person has derived from. When we check on Eurodac a person who has come into Ireland to claim asylum, we may see that they have previously claimed asylum in Greece, Germany or Belgium. I will not mention the UK because it is not part of Eurodac. If the person has said in those three countries that they are from a certain country, but they have changed their narrative when it comes to Ireland, that is relevant information for us to have. We cannot be criticised as a State for saying we have identified that a person who said they were from Jordan when they applied for asylum in Greece is now saying in Ireland that they are from Palestine. There has to be some balance in favour of the State to ensure it can accurately and coherently assess applications for international protection.

It is only in that context that the provisions we are talking about, with regard to arrest and detention, arise. I mentioned the example of somebody who refuses to go to the screening centre in Rathmines for the system. If somebody who has come in to claim asylum says that they are not going to bother going up to the screening centre in Rathmines, it is unacceptable to expect simply to be provided with accommodation in order to go through the process. The State has to be given some rights in this balancing act, and that is what we are discussing here.

On the specific amendments, amendment No. 19 proposes to introduce a new section 2(2) into the Bill to define "measure of last resort" with regard to the detention of minors. Senator Noonan may not be aware that I have tabled a Government amendment, No. 192, which takes on board many of the concerns highlighted by Deputies in the Dáil that are similar to the ones echoed here by Senators. A new section of the Bill to be inserted by the amendment in question - section 105, entitled "Detention as last resort" - provides that "Minors shall, as a rule, not be detained but shall be placed in suitable accommodation in accordance with Chapter 2". This two-page amendment sets out the details of why and how detention will be a last resort. For that reason, I do not think amendment No. 19 from Senators Harmon, Cosgrove, Noonan and Stephenson is necessary.

As amendment No. 38 is almost identical in wording to my own proposed amendment No. 184, I do not intend to accept it.

Amendments Nos. 39 to 41, inclusive, seek to amend section 24 of the Bill. In circumstances where section 24 applies, these amendments would require the immigration officer or a member of the Garda to inform the applicant of "the appeal mechanism" and "the right to access legal representation", would provide for a ground of detention related to "criminal offending" and would provide for a warrant at the time. I reiterate that there is no appeal mechanism when it comes to the screening process. We are talking about someone being told they have to travel to the screening centre to get themselves identified. There is no appeal against that. You have to do that; it is an obligation. For this reason, I am unable to accept amendment No. 39. This amendment arises in the context of arrest and detention for the purpose of bringing a person to a screening centre who has failed to co-operate with a direction under section 22 to attend such a centre. Such arrest and detention will only be as a last resort and only for as long as is required to bring the applicant to the screening centre to verify their identity, and in any event, for no longer than two days.

It is not clear what the Senators are referring to with the proposed reference to "the appeal mechanism". There is no appeal provided for against the requirement to undergo the screening process, the making of a direction under section 22 or indeed the arrest and detention itself. It is important to emphasise again that such arrest and detention is short-term in nature and is for one specific purpose only: to ensure the applicant attends the screening centre and has their identity verified. It is completely unreasonable for a person claiming asylum in Ireland not to go to a screening centre so that we can have their identity verified. As regards "the right to access legal representation", I am introducing further amendments on this matter. My own amendment No. 37, which seeks to amend section 24, and the related amendments Nos. 173 to 198, inclusive, will address these issues. My amendments have been drafted to align with the reception conditions directive, which governs arrest and detention. Therefore, I do not intend to accept this amendment.

I cannot accept amendment No. 42, which would require that facial image data not be used to identify an applicant, because it would restrict the use of the Eurodac system, which is a central system on which the migration pact relies. Senator Black spoke about facial recognition, but some of the reports she referred to are from five or ten years ago. The technology has advanced considerably since then. I believe the types of issues the Senator highlighted, which were identified in reports, have been minimised as a result of the advancement of technology.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 refer to text which is proposed to be deleted by my amendment No. 37. Amendment No. 46 concerns the detention of applicants with special reception needs. My amendment No. 195 makes detailed provision for the detention of applicants with special reception needs. By the way, there is also a provision in the Bill which allows a person to be excused attendance at a screening centre. There are circumstances where they can be excused from having to attend, but that is an excuse that is provided by the State. We permit them not to attend.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 concern provisions for the detention of minors. The text it amends is proposed to be deleted by my own amendment No. 37. The matters that amendments Nos. 47 and 48 address, including the best interests of the child in accommodation when minors are detained, are addressed in my own amendment No. 192, which I referred to earlier. I therefore do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 47 and 48.

Amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 53 and 54 concern further provisions for the detention of minors, particularly alternatives to detention. My amendment No. 186, on "Alternatives to detention", and my amendment No. 187, on "Measures relating to minors", introduce comprehensive provisions for alternatives to detention and the application of those measures to minors. The provisions I am proposing have been carefully drafted to align with the provisions of the reception conditions directive, and introduce all the required safeguards for the limited circumstances where such provisions may be used. Therefore, I will not accept amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 53 and 54.

Amendment No. 52 proposes to delete text which is also proposed to be deleted by my amendment No. 37, so that is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 55 concerns the safeguards for applicants with special reception needs. As the proposed wording is very similar to my own amendment No. 195, I do not propose to accept it.

Amendment No. 56 concerns the ordering of detention in writing by the courts. Provisions for detention by the courts are laid out in my own amendment No. 191.

Amendment No. 57 concerns the right of an applicant to apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the lawfulness of such detention. My own amendment No. 191 provides for information to be given to the applicant about their constitutional right to challenge their detention under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution.

That is my response in respect of the proposed amendments.

To go back to the point I emphasised at the outset, what is required here is an obligation that the State puts on applicants. Senators have spoken very eloquently about the rights of asylum applicants and about how we need to protect those rights. I thoroughly agree. At the same time, we also have to protect and vindicate the rights and entitlements of the State. We must ensure that the system is controlled and coherent and that it ensures that people who are legitimately fleeing persecution and war are provided with asylum.

There is a constant refrain of balancing the rights of asylum seekers and the rights of the State. Sometimes it may be a little bit of a negative framing. It is in the interests of the State that we are a state that does our best in relation to our international obligations in a world where people can access their rights. The idea is that we are balancing the rights of these people with almost a suggestion that the fundamental interest of the State is not to have people here and not to have to support them, and that we are compromising on that. Let me be clear: it is in the interests of the State that we would have proper, fair and real procedures that are accountable and proper safeguards. It is in the interests of the State that we would be in a world in which those who are seeking international protection can seek it and access it. I do not think that having that approach is a compromise on our interests. They are in the same interest.

I also think it is in the interests of the State that legislation should be properly scrutinised. This is something that is fundamentally in the interests of the State. I am also of the view that a guillotine should not be applied in respect of substantive legislation.

I would like if the Minister could clarify two issues that were raised. The first relates to facial recognition. This is not some historic issue. Last year, the UK's data protection watchdog challenged the Home Office and threatened it with potential future action because of the racial bias in facial recognition. That was in 2025. At the time, the Home Office admitted that its technology was more likely to incorrectly include some demographic groups in its results, so this is an issue. We are getting the picture now about the screening centre, which will identify people with Eurodac, which is going to involve facial recognition. Perhaps we might unpack what happens if someone believes they have been falsely identified under that system, if facial recognition has been involved. Is this going to become a piece that happens before people even get the chance to make their asylum applications? I have absolutely no problem with checking and verifying information. That is what you do in the course of an application, but this seems to be a kind of pre-application process that the Minister is talking about. Again, when he says there is no appeal, I am not clear what is in the system if somebody believes they have been falsely identified by means of that screening centre. How does that play out?

The Minister never answered our question in relation to amendment No. 37, which is the concern that people who are informed of their obligations are not necessarily informed in a language they may understand. Somebody might simply be informed in English, but if that is not the language they speak, they are in danger of being almost immediately in breach of the process and falling short simply because they did not understand what they were being asked to do. Could the Minister clarify if he is open to amending that? It would be better if he were to amend it himself to ensure that people are informed in a language they might reasonably be expected to understand. I refer to the core obligation, which, as the Minister said, comes at the very beginning of those processes.

In terms of the second point, huge amounts of translation services are provided in the IPO. That is absolutely necessary because people who cannot speak English who are coming here claiming asylum have to be understood and translated. Those services are there and they will be there. We cannot have any system operating either for the benefit of the asylum applicant or indeed fairly for the State, unless people can comprehensively understand what is being said. People will be understood in terms of their own language.

In that aspect-----

I am sorry, but I am responding to the Senator. The other issue she mentioned was facial recognition. She referred to the UK's technology in the Home Office. One of the things that is very noticeable is that the UK is at a considerable disadvantage now that it is no longer in the European Union, because the European Union does have very advanced technology systems and it does have quite a significant database in terms of asylum applications. When somebody comes in to claim asylum, it is not unreasonable to ask them for their name, their identity and other details. I think Senator Higgins will agree that it is perfectly reasonable to be able to ask somebody their name and for them to give their details and their background. It is also not unreasonable for the State to check that, and if it is found to be false, to put to the person that the Eurodac system says that is not their identity but this is their identity and let the person respond to that. Ultimately, the process will play out. It will be part of the evidence in the application process if somebody's identity is questionable and they have not established the correct identity. If somebody comes in and gives false identification, if and when that arises, that is a very material factor in determining whether or not the person should be entitled to receive asylum.

For clarity, I already acknowledged that the issue of language and understanding is there. That is the reason we were asking why it is not there in relation to amendment No. 37. I know it is in other areas. I am just looking for the same provision that the Minister rightly said is so important in other areas in order that it would also be there at the key point when a person is informed of the obligation to go to the screening centre. It could be a garda or an immigration officer. It is not necessarily at the International Protection Office.

If somebody arrives into the IPO and they are told to go to the screening centre in Rathmines, unless they understand it, we cannot expect them to be able to go to the screening centre in Rathmines. They will be coherently told where they have to go to. Senator Higgins does not need to be concerned about that. They will be coherently told, in whatever language can be communicated, where they have to go to. It is a small communication but it is an important obligation that applicants must comply with and it is a perfectly reasonable application on the part of the State to say they have to go to the screening centre because we want to verify their identity.

Amendment No. 20 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on Revenue.

Amendments No. 21, 30, 34, 199, 200, 215, 262, 268 and 377 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 23, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“(2) (a) In the application and interpretation of this Act, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all matters affecting a person who is a minor or who is presumed to be a minor. (b) In determining for the purposes of subsection (a) what is in the best interests of the child, the following factors shall be taken into account—

(i) the views of the child, having regard to the child’s age and maturity,

(ii) the child’s identity, including their age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and religion,

(iii) safety, welfare and development needs,

(iv) preservation of family relationships,

(v) any particular vulnerabilities of the child, and

(vi) any other particular circumstances pertaining to the child concerned.”.

Amendment No. 21 would include the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in the application of the Act's provisions by inserting a definition into the interpretation section. Nowhere in this Bill is the concept of the best interests of the child defined. It is referred to several times, including in the limitations being put in place regarding the detention of children, but it is left vague as to what that will actually mean. It needs to be defined as this amendment seeks to do. The principle of the best interests of the child is at the heart of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under Article 3 of the latter, we must ensure that the interests of the child are treated as a primary consideration in every action affecting children. EU law also makes this clear. The best interests principle should be the primary consideration for every aspect of this Bill that deals with children. That is why this amendment is necessary - to define on the face of the Bill the principle that must run throughout it in dealing with children. This needs to be defined.

We cannot leave this loose. We already had a discussion on previous amendments on how we are moving into new territory with regard to detaining children. It is never good when children are being detained. It is not acceptable. However, we also need to have a definition regarding what we are doing to include the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in the application of the Bill's provision by inserting a definition into the interpretation section in order that it will run throughout the Bill. Ultimately, the best interests of the child should be the defining statement of how we pursue this legislation from here on in. We cannot allow it to be loosely understood. We cannot allow it to be undefined. It is vital that the Government accepts this amendment.

I will speak briefly to amendments Nos. 30, 34, 199, 215, 262 and 268. Amendment No. 30 relates to the best interests of the child. This amendment is about placing a clear and explicit principle at the heart of this legislation, namely, that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration in all matters concerning minors.

While the principle is well recognised in international law and in broader child protection frameworks, it is essential that it is clearly reflected within this Bill. This amendment ensures that it is not implied but stated. It is also a clear obligation on the Minister to have due regard to this principle in all decisions and actions under this Bill relating to minors, which is important. For example, when it comes to things like multidisciplinary age assessments that must be conducted, they have to be fair and a multidisciplinary team has to be put in place for something like that. Without a clear statutory footing, there is always the risk that the needs of the child can become secondary within complex administrative systems.

Amendment No. 34 builds on something that is not a new concept. It is a well-established principle in both Irish law and international law, most notably under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Ireland is a signatory. However, where legislation directly impacts vulnerable children, particularly within the international protection system, it is essential that this principle is not just implied but also is clearly stated. As we know, many children who may come here will experience trauma, displacement, conflict and loss. Some may be unaccompanied minors arriving in the State without the protection or support of a parent or guardian. In those circumstances, the decisions made by the State can have a profound and lasting impact on their lives. This amendment ensures that the best interests of the child are explicitly recognised as the primary consideration during all the procedures carried out under this part of the legislation, including those linked to EU systems such as Eurodac. First, it provides a clear guidance for those responsible for implementing the legislation, ensuring that decisions are made with proper regard to those needs and vulnerable children. Second, it strengthens the legal safeguards available to minors within the system by making it clear that their welfare is not secondary but central.

Amendment No. 199 builds on the principle that we have already discussed, which is that the best interests of the child must the primary consideration. This amendment ensures that the principle is explicitly applied within this part of the Bill and that it is aligned with Article 23 of the asylum and migration management regulation. It ensures consistency between our domestic legislation and our obligation at EU level. It provides clarity for decision-makers operating within the system. It also ensures there is no ambiguity and that when procedures are being carried out with respect to a minor, the child's best interest is central to this.

Amendment No. 215 ensures that this principle is specifically linked to the part of the Bill that is aligned to Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation. First, it ensures that our domestic legislation is consistent with EU standards and obligations. Second, it provides clarity to those implementing the law and that the child's welfare is not an afterthought but a consideration. It is particularly important in the context of international protection procedures, which can be complex and, at times, very difficult for children to navigate. By clearly embedding it, we will ensure that it applies across all relevant decision-making processes within this part.

Amendment No. 262 reinforces the core principles. This amendment ensures that the principle is clearly embedded within this section of the Bill and aligned to the relevant provisions of the asylum procedures regulation. It is consistent with the other amendments.

Amendment No. 268 reinforces the principle that we have consistently sought to embed in this legislation, namely, the best interests of the child. This amendment ensures that within this Part, decision-making in respect of minors is clearly guided by that obligation and it is aligned with Article 20 of the qualification regulation. It ensures coherence with EU law, provides clarity for those implementing the system and strengthens the legal basis for ensuring that children's rights are upheld in practice.

I thank Senators for their contributions and for moving this amendment. If Members look throughout the Bill as it is at present, there are numerous references to "the best interests of the child". For example, section 41 states that, "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the application of this Chapter." Section 51 also states that, "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the application of this Chapter." I now propose to include even further reference to it in the amendments. If Members look at amendment No. 200, they will see that I am proposing that there be a new section 70, which will refer to Part 4 of the Bill. It states that "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the carrying out of procedures in respect of a minor under this Part." Moreover, amendment No. 377 deals with the area of family tracing for unaccompanied minors and there is reference to the child as well.

What is proposed in amendment No. 21 is that "the best interests of the child" would somehow be defined or set out in six categories. Subsection (2)(b) states that "In determining for the purposes of subsection (a) what is in the best interests of the child, the following factors shall be taken into account" and it then sets out six factors. I think that by defining them, it is probably limiting them because "the best interests of the child" is a general term that any entity, whether it is the determining authority or a court reviewing the legislation, will be required to have a broader assessment of. Amendment No. 21 would, in fact, limit it.

In terms of the amendments that I do not intend to accept, namely, amendments Nos. 21, 30, 34, 199, 215, 262, and 268, my officials and the Attorney General have examined the requirements of the directives and regulation measures in relation to the consideration of the best interests of the child. As I said, I have brought forward the necessary amendments to make further provision and they are provided for in amendments Nos. 200 and 377, to which I referred a few moments ago.

Regarding amendment No. 21, I will not accept it because by listing out how we assess the best interests of the child, we are limiting it. Amendment No. 30 is a general provision regarding the best interests of the child. Article 23 of the asylum and migration management regulation and Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation set out that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the State or the competent authorities of the State with respect to all procedures provided for in those regulations. That is a legally binding obligation on the State as a result of these regulations being directly applicable. As such, it is unnecessary to include amendment No. 30 in the Bill, and I do not propose to accept it.

Amendment No. 34 concerns the best interests of the child with respect to the collection of biometric data for the purposes of the Eurodac regulation. Regarding the Eurodac regulation, section 15 of the Bill clearly provides for the safeguards required by the Eurodac regulation in relation to the collection of biometric data from children. I do not believe a further provision is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 199 relates to the best interests of the child in procedures under the asylum and migration management regulation, AMMR. My amendment No. 200 proposes a similar provision in relation to AMMR.

Amendments Nos. 215 and 262 concern Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation. Article 22 provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration when applying that regulation. This is a directly legally binding obligation on the State. As such, it is not necessary to include these provisions in the Bill. Similarly, amendment No. 268 concerns the best interest of the child in the context of the qualification regulation. Article 20 of that regulation sets out that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for competent authorities of the State when applying provisions of those regulations to minors. This is a directly legally binding obligation on the State. As such, it is unnecessary to include the provision in the Bill.

I have also proposed amendment No. 377, which concerns family tracing for unaccompanied minors.

The reception conditions directive, the asylum and migration management regulation and the qualification regulation each make mention of family tracing for unaccompanied minors and the assistance to be provided to those minors in tracing their family members. Amendment No. 377 provides that the Minister shall have responsibility for ensuring that family tracing is undertaken in a timely manner. This amendment is necessary to safeguard the rights of unaccompanied minors within the international protection process. I therefore ask Senators to accept amendment No. 377.

On amendment No. 21, I appreciate that, as the Minister said, the best interest of the child is mentioned in other parts of the Bill. For this amendment, we had consultation with the Ombudsman for Children and that is why it worded as it is. We have not just picked these six categories off the top of our heads. Surely a seventh category could be added, with any other factors taken into account should the Minister feel it is limiting. Perhaps that is something that could be looked into on Report Stage.

The Minister referenced a binding obligation of the State towards the rights of the child anyway, if I understood his contribution correctly. We obviously have the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We might consider bringing a different amendment on Report Stage to look at instilling the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in this legislation. We would all agree that the ratified UN treaty is something that we would be hoping to instil in all legislation as it relates to children.

I want to concur with Senator Stephenson's remarks. I respectfully disagree with the Minister's comments that amendment No. 21 would be limiting. It specifically states "the following factors shall be taken into account". It does not say "the following factors only". The factors listed are very relevant. They include: the views of the child, having regard to the child's age and maturity; the child's identity, including their age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and religion; safety, welfare and development needs; preservation of family relationships; any particular vulnerability of the child; and any other particular circumstances pertaining to the child concerned. These are very much basic things that should be considered and it is worth setting those out within the legislation. They are certainly not limiting.

To say "best interests of the child" in terms of who is interpreting that, that is a very vague statement. There have to be guidelines in relation to this. Setting these particular ones out within the legislation would be very useful and clear. We have a duty of care to children in relation to their diversity, the different backgrounds they are coming from, the different family situations and the different vulnerabilities. It is important that we would include this amendment.

As Senators will know, a regulation is directly effective if the regulation, which sets out procedures, says the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. We have also transposed it in this Bill in many different areas.

We also have to be careful to recognise that we are entitled to refuse asylum to a child. Maybe people will look at me and think that is an horrific thing to say. If the whole Bill were to be interpreted on the basis of what was in the best interests of the child, then any interpretation would be that the child's best interests would be met by staying in Ireland. That is not the test that can be applied. It would be unfair on the State to say that any child who applied for asylum here was automatically entitled to it. I presume that is not what the Senators are saying. If they are not, then they are recognising that asylum can be refused to a child. The phrase "best interests" is in the context of certain Parts and Chapters of the Bill. We cannot have a situation where, if someone establishes that they are a child and they apply, they automatically get asylum.

As the Minister said, that is not what we are implying at all. We know that not every child coming into the State would automatically be granted asylum. For clarification, that is not what this is about. This is about taking into consideration the entire process. We are talking about the question of the suitability of detention and so on in terms of specific vulnerabilities. I do not think this is a controversial amendment in any way. If we are all on the same page about the protection and safeguarding of children and minors, then it seems to be uncontroversial to have this included. Will the Minister explain what hindrance this would have on the process when the Bill is passed? What parts of this amendment would hinder how the Minister imagines this legislation will be implemented?

Amendment No. 21, as drafted, is on "the application and interpretation of this Act", so it is not limiting it to simple procedures under the different regulations. It is in respect of the entire Bill. That Act would include the assessment of the application for asylum of the child. The amendment is broader than what is provided for in the regulations and, for that reason, I cannot accept it.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 23, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“Report on capacity of Child and Family Agency

3. (1) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act or of any relevant Part thereof, lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report on the capacity of the Child and Family Agency to discharge its statutory functions under this Act.

(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include—

(a) an assessment of the staffing levels, operational capacity and organisational structures of the Child and Family Agency insofar as they relate to the performance of its functions under this Act,

(b) an assessment of the financial and other resources available to the Agency for the purpose of fulfilling those functions, and

(c) information on the measures in place to support the Agency in complying with its statutory obligations under this Act.”.

This amendment concerns the capacity of Tusla, the Child and Family Agency. Under the legislation, Tusla will assume additional responsibilities in relation to unaccompanied minors seeking international protection. These responsibilities include assessing the needs of vulnerable children, co-ordinating their care arrangements and ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place throughout the process. Those are extremely important responsibilities. Children arriving in the State without a parent or guardian are among the most vulnerable individuals in our international protection system. However, we must also be honest about the pressure existing within the child protection system. Tusla is dealing with significant staff shortages and increased demand for services. Serious concerns have also been raised about unaccompanied minors going missing from care. Against that background, it is entirely unreasonable to ask whether Tusla has capacity to take on the expanded responsibilities the legislation proposes.

The amendment simply requires the Minister to produce a report assessing Tusla's staffing levels, operational capacity and resources in relation to these new duties. If we are serious about protecting vulnerable children, we must ensure the agencies responsible for their care have the resources necessary to fulfil that role. The amendment seeks to ensure those safeguards are in place.

I thank Senator Ryan for her amendment and her contribution to the debate. I do not propose to accept it. It is out of sync with where the Senator wishes to place it in the legislation. It would be just ahead of section 3, which deals with regulations and orders.

Once the legislation commences, whatever agency is responsible for functions under it will have to be fully resourced. We spoke yesterday of legal counselling and the extra financing gone to the Legal Aid Board this year to enable it to deal with the extra work it will have once the legislation is enacted. The same will be the case with whatever competent authority is designated as having responsibility for children. The amendment is unnecessary and I cannot accept it.

Will the Minister clarify what agency it will be? Does he have an idea at the moment? If it is Tusla, it does not have capacity to do the job it does right now, not to mind if this is put in.

The Senator has highlighted an issue that is under discussion between my Department and the Department of children. Some functions are at present carried out by Tusla; further functions will have to be provided in respect of unaccompanied minors. Discussion on that is ongoing between the two Departments. A final decision has not been made as to what entity will be designated as responsible for unaccompanied minors. The responsibility under the legislation is given to me to do it by way of secondary legislation. Whenever this legislation is enacted, promptly after that I will have to designate by statutory instrument the appropriate authority, whether Tusla or another entity.

Before we move to the vote, I welcome Deputy Brabazon and his guests from the Donaghmede Men's Shed in Dublin Bay North. I hope they enjoy their visit today.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 25, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“Report on treatment of refugees and asylum seekers

7. (1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall produce a report on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

(2) The report shall analyse the effects of this Act and include details as to whether immigrants are receiving appropriate legal counselling and are being treated humanly in detention in line with national law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the UN Charter.

(3) The report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”.

This amendment is self-explanatory. The Minister no doubt has a response. The amendment relates to the laying of a report on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

I want to bring to the attention of Members Standing Order 179, which states:

Twelve months following the enactment of a Bill, save in the case of the Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill, the member of the Government or Minister of State who is officially responsible for implementation of the Act shall provide a report which shall review the functioning of the Act and which shall be laid in the Parliamentary Library.

It is part of the rules of the Oireachtas that these reports have to be made.

I am just signalling to the Minister for justice that he is under an obligation under the rules of the House to make a report 12 months after the passing of the Bill as to what progress has been made with it. That provision in these rules seems to be ignored an awful lot, but it would save a lot of amendments and waste of time in debates if Ministers actually did comply with their obligations to make a report to each House and for the report to be laid before each House.

I strongly support this amendment from Senator Boyhan. I urge the Minister to accept it. As has been pointed out, it is an obligation that is there. Given that there are so many issues we will not get to discuss, at a minimum we should be in a position to discuss how the concerns we have identified have played out in the report. On humane treatment, there are provisions for the thresholds for medical age assessments for children and how that will be applied. There are provisions and questions on care and medical care for those applicants who may have medical care needs, and even unsuccessful applicants who may be facing deportation and may seek the removal of medical care. That is an issue that would need to be addressed. Something else that is touched on in the Bill that we have not had any opportunity to discuss in the context of humane treatment in detention is the accommodation material reception conditions. There has been no discussion or scrutiny of those issues. I will not go over them again, but the powers of detention we have talked about potentially stretch to lawful citizens as well. We mentioned that those executing these powers potentially might not have to identify themselves and might be able to search and enter private homes without warrant, and search without warrant the belongings of persons and potentially remove items without even the basics of a receipting system attached to it. There are huge questions with regard to national law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Charter that are correctly named by Senator Boyhan. If the Minister is not willing to allow us proper debate on each of those issues as they evolve throughout the Bill, the minimum is that we would have the chance to discuss a report on how this has played out subsequently.

I commend Senator Boyhan on this well thought-out amendment, particularly the reference to "the European Convention on Human Rights, and the UN Charter". This legislation is one of the biggest changes we will see to the asylum process in Ireland since the early 2000s. It is crucially important, particularly in light of the Minister's decision to sign the Danish letter in December, which seeks to explore a political declaration on potentially withdrawing or changing the provisions around Article 3, which is the protection of the right against inhumane and degrading treatment, and Article 8, the right to family life, in the ECHR, which I am concerned about. With this in mind, this is a sensible amendment.

I have a single extra sentence that relates directly to this. In the mechanism in the Bill that refers to a chief inspector, there is not clarity with regard to the powers that the chief inspector will have., Crucially, there seems to be a gagging mechanism in the Bill that will make the chief inspector unable to answer to Oireachtas committees. Unless we have a report structure, we are in danger that the chief inspector inspecting these places of residence will be precluded by the Bill from properly answering to a committee.

I support Senator Boyhan on this amendment. The more one engages with this, no matter what side of the various proposed amendments one is on, the more one sees that we are dealing with legislation that is unusually concerned with, quite frankly, human misery on many levels. It is difficult for any government to try to strike the balance, to use a phrase the Minister has used several times over the past few hours as we have debated this. One thing for sure is that even when one cannot guarantee the type of life for people who come to this country for whatever reason because of the requirements of having a sane and sensible migration system, there can be no doubt that in all of the State's dealings with people there must be an attempt to respect their human dignity in all cases. It seems to me that regular reporting on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers is all the more appropriate precisely because of the human distress at the heart of so many of these stories, regardless of whatever adjudications have to be made on people's cases.

I also commend Senator McDowell on spotting a Standing Order of the Seanad that may perhaps be more honoured in the breach than the observance. I would like to hear the Minister's view. It is so long since I memorised the Standing Orders of this House that I cannot remember whether I actually did or not. I do not know whether there is a similar Standing Order in the Dáil. I would be glad to hear the Minister's attitude to the provision Senator McDowell has just referred to.

I thank Senator Boyhan for putting forward this amendment. I had not been aware of the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann. In fact, I am not sure if I am aware of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann.

Never admit it.

The Minister is doing well.

I will have to brush up on both of them. Certainly, if there is an obligation on me or my Department to produce something, I know I will be reminded by Seanad Éireann to do it and I will certainly comply with Standing Orders. However, I think the amendment is unnecessary because of the detailed provision contained in Part 12 of the Bill before the Seanad. In Part 12, there is a whole section dealing with the chief inspector of asylum and border procedures. The Bill establishes the office of a new chief inspector. Under the legislation, his role will be to monitor the treatment of applicants in the asylum border procedure. It provides that the chief inspector shall have the power to receive complaints, carry out inspections and conduct formal investigations to ensure the fundamental rights of applicants are upheld at all times. The chief inspector shall also produce a report annually on the performance of their functions and other related matters from the previous year. I then cause a copy of that report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Obviously, the function of the chief inspector, which very much replicates what Senator Boyhan wants to achieve, will play a critical role in guaranteeing the fundamental rights of international protection applicants. I ask Senators to look through Part 12. They will see a detailed series of provisions contained within it, which include a requirement for the report to be prepared and to come back before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I thank the Senator for his amendment, but I think the provision within Part 12 is stronger than what is proposed in his amendment.

In light of what the Minister has said, I propose, with the consent of the House, to withdraw the amendment with the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Will the Minister confirm that the chief inspector is limited in their ability to report to or speak to committees of the Oireachtas? I do not actually think it is a replacement if we have a chief inspector who is not free to speak to an Oireachtas committee or to testify before it.

Section 209, which deals with the annual report of the chief inspector, provides that he is required "not later than 3 months after the end of each year" to produce and "submit to the Minister an annual report on the performance of the Chief Inspector’s functions". I am then required to "cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas". It is not unusual that the Bill provides that any part of the report that would "prejudice the security of a designated asylum border facility", "prejudice the interests of national security" or "purport to assign criminal or civil liability" can be "redacted". Under the prisons legislation, I receive reports from the Inspector of Prisons but there are parts of those reports that can be redacted if it is in the public interest to do so. It is entirely a matter for the chief inspector to put what he wants into his report. I certainly hope I will be able to lay a full, unredacted version of his report before the Houses.

For the record, the Bill provides that "The Chief Inspector shall not be required to give account before a committee for any matter which is or has been-----"

What section is the Senator reading out?

I am reading from section 210(2). It refers to "any matter which is or has been or may be at a future date, the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State." That will cover any matter that may be controversial or subject in the future to any kind of court or tribunal.

I do not believe that is good practice. The chief inspector should not have such a broad preclusion where they are allowed to give account of issues without having such a clear get-out clause from future accountability. We do not need to go into further detail on this but it is important to place it on the record.

The suggestion that the chief inspector will be precluded from attending before, say, the Oireachtas justice committee, is wrong. Obviously, he or she can attend. There is no issue about that. It is not for me to dictate to committees who can or cannot attend before them. I suspect this will be very much like the Inspector of Prisons, and the chief inspector will be invited before a committee and questioned.

What is set out here is that he or she "shall not be required to give account before a committee for any matter which is or has been, or may be at a future date, the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State." It is a protection for the chief inspector that he or she does not have to give information in respect of a matter that could be the subject of proceedings. That is a prerogative and a privilege of the chief inspector.

Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 25, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"CHAPTER 2

Powers of the Government to adapt, suspend and modify application of international protection provisions in the case of exceptional difficulties or emergencies

Orders made by the Government

7. (1) Nothwithstanding any provision of this Act or of any other enactment relating to the provision by the State of international protection or reception of persons by the State as refugees or for subsidiary protection or for application for either such status, the Government by order may adapt, suspend or modify the application of any provision of any such enactment whereby the said order of the Government declares that such measures are urgently required in the public interest or to protect the security of the State or to conserve the resources of the State in the national interest.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) , the power of the Government to make an order thereunder shall include the following powers:

(a) the power to limit the number of persons entitled to apply for international protection in any given year or other period;

(b) the power to limit or suspend any obligations on the State to provide accommodation for any persons applying for international protection;

(c) the power to limit or suspend any obligations on the State to provide payments or material assistance in kind to any applicants for international protection;

(d) the power to limit or suspend any liability on the part of the State or other statutory bodies or authorities or agencies to compensate any persons applying for international protection or their dependents for any failure to afford such persons accommodation or other welfare assistance.

(3) In the exercise of its powers under this Chapter, the Government may have regard to any relevant consideration including the following considerations:

(a) the budgetary situation and financial capacity of the Exchequer;

(b) the capacity of the State and of national economic resources and enterprises to provide accommodation for persons seeking international protection and for other persons needing accommodation in the State;

(c) the capacity of the State and statutory and other bodies to provide temporary or emergency accommodation for persons who could be otherwise homeless or obliged to live in overcrowded and/or unsafe or unsanitary circumstances;

(d) the exigencies of the common good.".

This proposal is to amend the Act to allow the Government to have an emergency break. Essentially, what it says is that where an emergency arises, the Government is entitled to make an order limiting the number of persons entitled to apply for international protection if we are being overwhelmed by numbers, and including the power to limit or suspend any obligations of the State to provide accommodation if we do not have it, the power to limit or suspend any obligations to provide payments or material assistance in certain circumstances and the power to limit or suspend any liability on the part of the State or statutory bodies to compensate any persons applying for international protection or their dependants.

I have in mind the judgment the High Court made awarding compensation. Senator Mullen has been waiting patiently to acquaint the House with the factual background to the award of compensation so that we can see that there is a strong case for allowing the State in certain circumstances to say we cannot afford to compensate everybody whose accommodation, for instance, has fallen below the standards required by the Court of Justice of the European Union. I will give way to Senator Mullen, if I can.

They are sleeping on the streets.

I echo what Senator McDowell, the Minister and no doubt others have said, which is that nobody would ever want to make any moral judgment on people who seek to come to this country, often in the most difficult of circumstances. The issue is, of course, that we have to keep a structure, a cohesiveness and a reasonableness to our asylum and migration system, for the sake of fairness to those who cannot come to this country and for the sake of our economic and social cohesion, and also keeping in mind our humanitarian obligations and the security of this country in the longer term.

Two heart-rending cases struck me. The first was the case of Mr. A, a 25-year-old man from Afghanistan who was forced to flee. The Taliban killed an older sibling and there were various other horrible circumstances in his life. The fact was, though, that this gentleman came to the country after he had been in Hungary following a serious car accident. In his case, an award of €9,000 was made. The other case that was cited in the judgment of Mr. Justice Ferriter related to Mr. J, a 22-year-old Christian from India who had entered the State in March 2023. He had been forced to flee India because of his involvement in an interfaith relationship, but he went to London, where he lived for 17 months, and then came to Ireland to claim asylum. Mindful of what has been said by Senator McDowell and the Minister when we were talking about these Francovich damages, what is the Minister's view as to the reasonableness of this?

What was said yesterday was effectively that the Government's hands are tied because of the operation of European law and that this goes back to the Lisbon treaty, but I am mindful that in another forum the Minister is party to seeking to change the way things work around migration. In particular, I am thinking of the fact that Ireland has signed up to the initiative with various other countries at Council of Europe level to effectively get the European Court of Human Rights to rethink the operation of human rights law around the right of states to expel non-nationals who have criminal records. That, indeed, gave the European Court of Human Rights a fit of the vapours. The Minister has been criticised and Ireland has been criticised for being one of 26 member states that have signed up effectively to an initiative that will lead to a development at the committee of the foreign ministers this year, but there is a recalibration of the operation of the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights in prospect because member states have certain needs. What is the Minister's attitude to the operation of European law if it is leading to decisions such as we have seen in the instant case in the Ferriter judgment? Does he want to see change? Would he envisage that Ireland should seek to reclaim a measure of sovereignty, such as is set out in Senator McDowell's amendment? Does the country need to get a measure of control back so that we do not end up in situations where, notwithstanding the heart-rending nature of such cases, the State ends up being forced to compensate people at a level where it cannot compensate its own citizens in the same way, thus creating inequalities, resentments, etc.? I would be glad to hear the Minister's response to that.

Maybe linked to that is the question as to whether we believe in the universality of the international human rights framework, which the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, was designed to uphold, or whether we believe that some people have more rights than others, and whether we should prioritise different people based on where they are from in the context of the rights they can access.

Of course, Article 3 of the ECHR is the article in respect of which Ireland has taken two interstate cases - the only interstate cases that Ireland has taken against the British Government. The first was on the hooded men case from the 1970s in the North and the second was on the Tories' awful Legacy Act. It would be great to hear if we are bringing forward provisions or taking any measures that are attempting to change and alter Ireland's long-held and foundational position on the ECHR because we believe that some people as asylum seekers deserve more or fewer rights than our ordinary citizens.

I thank Senator McDowell for his amendment and thank colleagues for their contributions.

The first issue concerns the judgment in the case brought by Mr. A and Mr. J. I will not comment too much on that because I am appealing that judgment and anything I want to say will be said in the Court of Appeal rather than in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I need to respect the separation of powers. The only point I would make is that the basis for the Francovich damages claim in that case was based on decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU. The other issue that was referred to by Senator Mullen was in respect of the ECHR, which obviously has a different thread and line of judgments.

The issue that arose at the Council of Europe, and which Ireland signed up to along with 26 other members of the Council of Europe including the United Kingdom, was in respect of the court's interpretation of Article 3 and, in particular, the definition of inhuman and degrading treatment. As was mentioned by Senator Stephenson, traditionally, the phrase "inhuman and degrading treatment" was used in cases such as that of the hooded men, which we all recall, where severe treatment was used against individuals who were being detained by the state. Indeed, Ireland won that case in the 1970s, not on the grounds of torture but on the grounds of inhuman and degrading treatment.

What prompted the proposed letter that was signed by Ireland and others was the new interpretation that has been applied by the ECHR in a small number of cases that gave a broader definition of inhuman and degrading treatment.

In particular, what prompted it was that a number of member states, not Ireland, had found difficulties in deporting individuals who had been convicted of serious criminal offences back to the countries from where they came, including countries in the Council of Europe. I do not have the names of the cases on me at present but there were three in particular. Some of the grounds relied upon included that the health service in the country to which the convicted person was to be returned would not provide the person with the same level of health treatment that they had received in the member state country. This included when it was a transfer back to a country within the Council of Europe.

I hear a bell, which I think means I have to shut up.

As it is now 4 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Seanad: "That amendment No. 25 is hereby negatived; section 7 is hereby agreed to in committee; the Government amendments undisposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, other than sections 24, 44, 47 and 233 which are hereby deleted, the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended is hereby agreed to in committee; Schedules 1 and 2 are hereby agreed to in committee; and the Title as amended is hereby agreed to in committee."

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.